Twenty nine years ago, on this day, October 1st, 1997,
NBC covered one hundred television weather forecasters on October 1, 1997 who were invited to the White House for a briefing on global warming policy. By this action the Clinton administration appeared to be linking the greenhouse effect to today’s weather. (Sachsman, 2000:6)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363.4ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the US, under George H. W. Bush had successfully stopped targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries being there in the text of the climate treaty to be signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. And so countries interested in making something happen had got targets and timetables onto the agenda by the time of the first COP – “the Berlin mandate”, which called for rich nations to reduce their emissions, and to come to the third COP with plans for reducing their emissions.
An enormous lobbying effort against the US turning up at Kyoto with a reduction plan had been underway for a couple of years, and this had succeeded in that there was the Byrd Hagel resolution – adopted 95 to nil – that basically said the US would not sign anything that didn’t impose restrictions on countries like China, even though the US had signed up in 1992 to so-called “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
Thespecificcontext
So here we see the specific context is that Al Gore is going to be flying off to Kyoto in a couple of months, and we see the Clinton White House trying to stiffen spines, put arguments about why there needs to be action on climate change, etc. etc.
What I think we can learn from this is that we have been failing on climate change for a very long time. This was 29 years ago, and I don’t see why anyone thinks that we will not continue to fail on climate change.
What happened next Gore went to Kyoto. There was an agreement at Kyoto. Clinton didn’t try toratify it because he knew he didn’t have the numbers in the Senate, and then under the presidency of Dick Cheney via the sock puppet that was George H. W. Bush’s son, W, the US pulled out of Kyoto in March 2001.
Kyoto was eventually ratified/became law, because the Russians wanted membership in the WTO, and that was the quid pro quo.
And then Kyoto was not really replaced. There was a failed conference at Copenhagen, and now we have a version of the Parisian “Pledge and Review”, which everyone knew was a farce.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Last Friday Dr George Adamson of Kings College London very kindly conducted an hour long interview about, well, El Niños and the history of how they’ve been conceptualised, what we might expect and what to watch out for. I think it’s an excellent use of your time. It’s been lightly edited, but meaning preserved.
Marc Hudson
Is this El Niño different, and if so, how?
George Adamson
It is different in the sense that it’s stronger. The warming is more intense. So the way that global scientists tend to define El Niño now is the way it’s defined in America; and there’s a whole other history there about why the American definition gets taken up by everyone else, which I won’t go into. But that defines El Niño through temperature rises in a region called Niño- 3.4, and there’s a history of that region which I won’t go into.
Marc Hudson
I read that it was an accident in a radio interview in one of your chapters, kind of something like that.
George Adamson
Yeah, yeah. A guy wrote it down literally on the back of a napkin. But it’s a rectangular block of water in the equatorial Pacific, towards the eastern side of the Pacific, but not actually hitting the coast, which gets the maximum level of warming during El Niño events – or most El Niño events.
It’s also an area where temperature there has most impact on the weather patterns in the USA, which is why NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took it up, which then got taken up by the World Meteorological Organisation.
That is hitting very, very warm temperatures. In fact, we’ve hit record temperatures already.
Marc Hudson
Two months early.
George Adamson
Yeah, normally in September it doesn’t usually peak – certainly, the ones that we’ve got measured – haven’t peaked until much much later than that. So it is different. You have to bear in mind that the background is changing as well. So the ocean as a whole is getting warmer.
So a direct comparison doesn’t quite work. In fact, NOAA has started to use a slightly different measure, rather than just looking at what’s called the ONI, Oceanic Niño Index, which is how much warmer is it than the average. It’s a measure that takes account of the fact that the average is moving. That doesn’t give quite so high extremes, but it is still unusually warm. And of those that we have good measurements for, which is early 80s-ish onwards, depends on how you measure it, maybe early 70s onwards. This one looks like it will be by far the strongest.
So it is stronger, and there are various things that you expect to come with that. You expect to have heavy rainfall in Peru. One thing that is different in this El Niño, well, maybe different from 2015-16, is the 2015 -6 El Niño was not associated with heavy rainfall in the classic El Niño region of Peru.
I was going to say it’s unusual in that sense. Actually, every El Niño is unusual. Back in the 90s, particularly with the 97-98 El Niño, scientists thought they had the answer, and they basically understood how El Niños worked.
And almost every single one since then has been surprising. This one is surprising in its intensity. But we should probably expect to have heavy rainfall in Peru. We should expect collapse in some fish stocks off the coast of Peru and Ecuador, with impacts on food. We should expect disruption to growth of crops pretty much all the way along the western coast of the Americas, north and south, and other parts of the Americas as well, Brazil, for example.
And we expect and are already seeing a particularly intense haze event, or they call them “haze seasons” now. But these are totally manufactured anthropogenic seasons in Southeast Asia, which is where the forests are burnt every year. And this is happening so often that it creates so much smoke that has created a haze season in Southeast Asia. That is becoming strong, and you expect it to be strong because the rainfall in Southeast Asia will be lower than normal, which means the fires will burn bigger and longer. And the reason I’m kind of stuttering a bit when I’m saying that is because there never used to be a “haze season”, and El Niño does not cause it. El Niño makes it worse, but the fires are set by people. You know, they didn’t used to burn that much forest in Southeast Asia, but they do, and without the rain, that’s going to be an even bigger problem.
Marc Hudson The next question is“what should cautious readers/viewers be alerted to in terms of hype, misinformation, disinformation?”
So the hype, I think -and I’m slightly jumping forward here to some of your future questions. – the hype for me comes in the relationship between El Niño and climate change.
Now, El Niño, or what we now call El Niño. The term has changed a lot over the 150 years or so that it’s been common parlance. But what we now call El Nino is, as far as we can tell, a natural phenomenon. And it occurs basically because the Pacific is really really wide, so the winds can blow unabated, and that changes the the height of the surface water, and it changes some of the atmospheric patterns because of that, just because of the Earth is turning. But ultimately, if you are pushing water from one side of an ocean to another, you get a gravitational difference: one side of the ocean is basically higher than the other, and there will be certain periods where gravity does its thing, and that water kind of sloshes back, and and that changes the ocean temperatures and the atmospheric patterns.
Ultimately, it will be unstable because the Earth is turning in the other direction, so it will spring back again. And that will happen. It happens a little bit in the Atlantic, which is much much narrower. It happens a little bit in the Indian Ocean. It happens a lot in the Pacific Ocean. And as long as we have continents. If you think 250 million years ago, when we had Pangaea, it was one supercontinent, and then a massive ocean, there would have been enormous El Niños, and so that will always happen.
There is also climate change, and climate change is an anthropogenic phenomenon caused by ; we all know what climate change is.
I would say be aware of two things. The minor thing to be aware of is hype about the relationship between climate change and the strength of this El Niño. There’s a real tendency, I think, because we can see, you know, with our own eyes, climate change “out there” now. It’s not just an idea; like it is changing the world around us.
It’s tempting to think, “well, that must be why the El Niñois so strong”, and I can’t say definitely that that’s not the case. You know, maybe at some point people will be able to draw that link. What I can say, when I was writing the book and doing some work in that area around 2020-2021ish, I had a look at the various climate model runs on what was going to change with El Niño going forward
And almost everything was predicted: less El Niños, more El Niños, more variability, less variability, stronger La Niñas, you know, etc. etc. So be wary of people drawing that link too much.
What you can say is that “climate change warms the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and more energy, so some of the impacts of an El Niño will be stronger,” in the sense of an impact of anything. You know, hurricanes can be stronger, and in the Pacific, hurricanes anyway tend to be stronger during El Niño events. So, the maximum intensity of hurricanes is likely to be stronger. Global temperature will rise next year, almost definitely.
So this is where you need to be wary the other way. Global temperature will rise next year, and what you’ll see is “El Niñowas pushing global temperature to levels never seen before”, and that’s kind of half true, but also very very misleading.
Because you have basically the pool of warm water which usually sits on the western Pacific; during an El Niño event, that becomes much larger across the Pacific, which means a lot of that water from the ocean can get released into the atmosphere. And that has always been the case.
So, if you looked at a pre-climate change graph of global temperature – as much as it’s possible to do that – what you’d see is peaks and troughs, and a lot of those peaks would be associated with El Niño years, but they would then be associated with troughs, where that warmth was then locked back into the ocean. So, what will happen in 2027, and it is already happening now, is that energy that is in the ocean will be released into the atmosphere, and the following year, some of that energy will go back into the ocean.
So, were climate change not happening, it would just be a curio for scientists: “oh, it’s interesting. You get a warm year and then you get a cold year, isn’t that interesting?” But for the vast majority of people, it would be totally uninteresting.
What’s happening here is a lot of that energy will be released into the atmosphere, and when it drops again, and it all averages out in five or six years’ time, the trend will have been upwards because climate change makes it warmer. So, really watch out for that. What will happen next year is the temperature will get warmer because the temperature always gets warmer, and El Niño is just part of the noise within the upwards trend. So that’s one thing to to watch out for.
And then the other one is this the more directly, I don’t want to use the word sceptical, but you know obfuscation that will come with El Niño, where people say, “Oh, it’s hot. Oh, well, it’s just El Niño, we don’t need to talk about it.” Again, that’s partly true, but totally misleading.
Marc Hudson
Yeah, as I said, it’s already there in the Daily Mail. They’ve got various techniques that they use all the time, and then El Niño, when possible, they use. Its own form of pulse and press disturbances with a pun on ‘press’ I guess I’ll have to work that in somehow.
Various researchers have pointed to how El NiñoLa Niña is gendered, and I came across this via the footnotes in the chapter “climate change and society” in your book, and I went and read the Julia Miller piece, which I thought had some useful points. How does this gendering shape our perceptions, and what does labelling this one a “Godzilla” do? I mean, how do these framings make it easier and harder to think in certain ways, to get constructivist?
George Adamson
Yeah. Okay.. So La Niña was a term that was invented in the 1980s.
So El Niño, as I said, is a term that has changed over the years. It was originally used by Peruvian fishermen to refer to an annual water current, which you get every single year off of South America. And as more and more attention was focused on it, it shifted in meaning towards this multi-year, variable Pacific-wide global phenomenon that we talk about now.
So whilst the meaning of El Niño has changed, it has changed organically. La Niña was very specifically introduced. It was introduced in the 1980s. And it was introduced because you know when there’s warm years, those warm years are followed by cold years. When there’s years where it’s particularly wet over Peru and particularly dry over Indonesia, there’s also a reverse. You know the kind of extremes of the norm. If you want to be cynical about this, then you can just say that if you normalise anything,, so you have the y-axis going through the zero, you’re necessarily going to have a negative and a positive.
And people were throwing around words for these ‘negative’ El Niño events. One I really liked was El Viejo, so the old man for El Niño is young man. I almost wonder just the whole connotations of what we now call La Niña is, and even what El Niño is, would have been very different if it was the old man and the young man. But that didn’t stick.
There was a time in the 70s where the term anti-niño or anti-El Niño was going around, but you couldn’t use that because El Niño comes from baby Jesus. It’s the “boy”, the “Christ child”. So anti niño becomes the antichrist. Okay, so we can’t have the “antichrist”!
So George Philander is a South African scientist who was working in America. He came up with this idea of let’s call it La Niña. What it does, calling it La Niña, is kind of two things.
One is, we have assumptions in Western society about what is masculine and what is feminine, and masculine is stronger, it’s hotter, it’s drier. Feminine is you know more wet, cooler, and less intense. So La Niña gets associated with nice spring rains, whereas El Niño is fierce summer droughts. Actually, La Niña, or what we now refer to as La Niña, can be associated with devastating floods in lots of parts of the world and in droughts in some places. La Niña is not “less bad” than El Niño. The global hydro-meteorological hazards that you get during a La Niña event are just as fierce as they are during an El Niñoevent. They’re not quite the opposite, but they happen in different places, so that’s the first thing. The second thing is, I think that El Niño. What we’ve done is, we’ve given a complicated pattern of ocean atmosphere variability, which takes place in the Pacific and affects the whole world, a name. We’ve called it a thing, which means as soon as you do that, you put boundaries on it.
So, I mean, use an analogy of naming storms. Naming storms kind of makes sense because a storm literally is bounded. I mean, you know, because of the way the high pressure sits in a storm, the edge of a storm is very, very defined, and and and the edge of a hurricane will be. You can have clear weather. You know, you can see a hurricane coming across the ocean. El Niño is not like that. It’s not bounded. It’s not bounded in space. It’s not bounded in time, and it’s certainly not bounded in the effects that the variability that you see around the world that is associated with an El Niño event is certainly not bounded, and it is always changing. But calling it El Niño gives an illusion that this is the case, and when you call the other side of El Niño La Niña, I think that even really strengthens that because you know we all naturally, you know we understand boy girl, we understand binaries. We live in a world where you know 95% of the population are one gender or another.
So you know we live in a world of binaries. We kind of understand that, and I think it then strengthens the mental shortcut that people make about El Niño being a bounded thing.
So we can forecast El Niños quite well a long time in advance, which is a really wonderful thing. Just the scientists found in the late 80s, early 90s that variability in the Central Pacific was quite predictable. You know, a long time before we had really good general circulation models, people discovered they could forecast El Niño using really quite simple models of basically just what’s happening in the equator. Now we have a whole bunch of models, so disaster managers in various different places should be able to use those models to prepare for what’s happening in their country.
But I think that when you then frame that as “an El Niñois coming”, you lose some of the benefits there because that leads to an assumption that things will be the same as they were during the last El Niño. I mean, that was a big problem in Peru in 2015-16, as everyone assumed it would be like it was in 97, 98, and it wasn’t. And in fact, actually, Peru got El Nino type flooding in 2017 when no one was expecting it.
And the problems with the definitions and the forecast was not clearly the only problem with what was happening in Peru at that time, but it didn’t help. So bounding it and then giving it a life and gives it lots of agency, and then it becomes much easier to say things like, “Oh, you know, it’s 21 degrees on the 25th of September where I am at the moment. Well, that’s happening because of El Niño.” I mean, the relationship between what’s happening in the Pacific and what’s happening in summer autumn temperatures in the UK is very weak. It’s not, not there, but it’s very, very weak. It’s very, very difficult to work out, in the moment, what is causing our weather to be what it is. And even this idea of what’s causing it to be what it is, you know, weather fluctuates.
You know, I’m, I’m going to kind of contradict what I said earlier about climate change when I said “it’s complicated.” In another way, climate change is very simple. You know, my simple answer to the question “why is it so warm in late September?” is “it’s climate change.” You know, there are all kinds of things that are happening that make our weather fluctuate. You know, the fact that we have high pressure and it’s warm is caused by all kinds of reasons. The fact we have high pressure and it’s this warm is caused by the fact there’s a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that wasn’t there before. So El Niño, the more you personalise something, the easier it is to blame, and “Godzilla” does that as well. You know this idea of the Godzilla. It interests me that that idea of Godzilla is circulating so much this year because that was thrown out in 2014 or 2015 because that 2015 El Niño took a year longer to develop than people thought. So somewhere during that period and it was Bill Patzert, a climate scientist at NASA who came out with it, and the general feeling amongst the community was, “this is ridiculous”. I mean, I interviewed a whole bunch of American El Niño scientists in late 2016, and they went, “you know, there’s this term Godzilla knocking around, and none of us pay any attention to it,” and then suddenly this year [2026], it’s common parlance. You know, I have people in India coming to me and saying, “Oh, George, you know, you work in El Niño. Like we’re all talking about how it’s going to be a Godzilla El Niño.” Yeah. So that’s just as an academic interest, I find that fascinating.
Marc Hudson
Can I interject a second on the Godzilla thing? Well, I mean, obviously we both know that it was the Godzilla monster comes from the Japanese, post-Hiroshima, feeling that there will be revenge, that there will be a reckoning. And it also occurs to me that there is a subset of climate activists so exhausted by their inability to get policy change that they’re wishing for and wanting some sort of enormous “slap”. You know that Batman meme where he slaps Robin,
where people are hoping that an outside agent – a Godzilla – will just come and cut through all the flimflam and make it easier to talk about – and take – action to fix our broader problem. So El Niñoitself and Godzilla El Niño especially, become a hoped for saviour almost.
George Adamson
That’s so interesting because that was happening in 2015 as well. So 2015 was a really strong drought year in California, and it was being described as the reason that it was in drought was because there was a an unusual mass of warm water sitting somewhere off the coast of California, which was deflecting away the the rains that would usually hit them, and that mass got called the Blob.[Wikipedia]
And what happened in 2015 was that people were hoping that El Niño would come and fight the Blob. I think that is actually one of the Godzilla monsters, as he fights something called the Blob. So there’s cartoons out there, Godzilla versus the Blob, which I use in some of my lectures. So yeah, I hadn’t really thought about it that way. Maybe it’s the same kind of thing. That actually people want it. People want Godzilla to come out and start smashing buildings, so that people go, “Oh yeah, there’s a there’s a problem here.” Yeah, I mean, my sense is that won’t work.
Marc Hudson
Mine too.
George Adamson
Yeah, I don’t know. That’s something to keep an eye on. I think if you’re watching the media coverage, watch Godzilla, and see what Godzilla does as an idea.
Marc Hudson
At the moment, my Google alerts is “El Niño” and “Impacts”, but I think I might add El Niñoand Godzilla, and see what happens. Right, we’re almost done. Based on previous El Niños, how might we see politicians using El Niño to frame or reframe their climate and energy policies? What blame shifting will happen, and how might the denialists or lukewarmers use El Niñoto push their perspectives?
George Adamson
I’d say based on El Niño on previous El Niños, it will do nothing to climate and energy policy.
Marc Hudson
But what about politicians’ efforts to reframe? I mean, you think that they won’t use it, or
George Adamson
So it will. They will use it in disaster management. So this is the discourse with this El Niño is new because climate change is so strongly woven into it. It was a bit in 2015-16 in the two previous big ones, the 1982 and the 1997 El Niños, climate change wasn’t really being talked about. Politicians were using it to deflect against poor disaster management. Like, “oh, it flooded here.” “Well, you know, the flood defences have fallen apart over the last 20 years,” “oh yeah, but it’s El Niño.” It’s not. I think it probably will depend on the politician. You know, in this country, I don’t imagine that our Prime Minister will say anything about El Niño at all. I can imagine that you know the esteemed president of the USA might might mention it once or twice.
Marc Hudson
And get his sharpie out and do some weather modification?
George Adamson
Yeah and probably do some climate modelling with his pen, but that will just become part of the insane ramblings that come out of his mouth. I think The lukewarmists, yeah, it will just become, as you said, part of their arsenal. As we don’t need to, we don’t need to worry about this because… you know, there’s always something we don’t need to worry about this because. and El Niño is, it’s there.
My parents live in France in the summer, and it was really hot in France this summer. Like you know, it was really hot in the UK, it was even hotter. And they said they would speak to people, and not necessarily Le Pen voters, just you know, ordinary people who would say, “oh yeah, but it’s this El Nino that’s causing this”, so yeah, it’s there. It’s floating around in the discourse.
Marc Hudson
I want to say El Niñoallows you to do is to not talk about or think about climate change because climate change is so painful. Because, you and I and anyone older than us has been warned about this for three, four decades now. And to admit that we’re now living with the consequences of having ignored previous warnings is quite painful. And so, El Niñowill be a useful, almost willed distraction, where everyone can worry about it so that they don’t have to think about the underlying press disturbance. And with El Niñois just the pulse disturbance. But it’ll be useful to individuals in that way. Okay, that’s worth thinking about.
George Adamson
I absolutely agree with you, and I think it’s always worth keeping in mind that we can focus on deniers, you know, and there clearly are people out there who just like to disagree with what things that people like me and you talk about just because they don’t like us for whatever reason. But everybody does it to an extent, you know, and because, as you said, it’s like climate change is hard. It’s so hard. I’ve been working- I started my PhD in 2009. I started my undergraduate degree in 2001 – So, to a greater or lesser extent, I’ve been working in this area for 25 years. And it’s not just the fact we haven’t dealt with it that makes it clear how hard it is. It’s just the more that I look into it, the more I realise how hard it is to deal with. So yeah, I mean I can see the temptation of saying, “Oh, but there’s a there’s a natural event which is going to come and cause…” you know it’s almost like a relief for a little bit.
Marc Hudson
And also that word “natural. Even when people concede that you know cobra venom is natural and that hurricanes are natural, natural still comes with this assumption of benevolence or beneficence, or at least inevitability. “Well, you can’t do anything; it’s just natural.” Yeah,
George Adamson
Yeah, yeah, I agree with that entirely.
Marc Hudson
Besides your own work on El Niño, which I would recommend to other people, having read bits of it, and thank you for the 2023 article you sent – I haven’t read beyond the abstract yet – Who else should people be reading on El Niño, either the science or the sociology or whatever. Who would you give a shout out to?
There is a really good paper if you’re interested in the power of discourse by someone called Marika Sturken. She’s a cultural theorist, I suppose you’d say, called “Desiring the Weather: El Niño, the media, and California identity”, which was published in 2001, and it was all about how the Weather Channel and the way that it presented El Niño and how that spoke to California’s view of itself, and particularly Californian men in the late ’90s post Cold War era, that one is absolutely fascinating.
Let me think of more recent stuff. Well, anything by Mickey Glantz is worth reading. …. he was working on El Niño before it was El Niño. Yes, his original work was on Peruvian fishery. Yes, back in the 70s, so he was there when El Niño started to materialise, and he’s a great person to talk to. He’s a great person to read his work because he’s always worked in El Niño, but he’s also been a slight outsider. He’s an engineer by training who’s become a social scientist or sociologist of science. He has worked with all of the big El Niño scientists without being one, so he’s always had a bit of a been a bit of a commentator on what’s happening, so reading any of his stuff and actually just following the stuff he said about El Niño from the 70s through to today, that’s an interesting story on its own.
Final question is always “anything else you’d like to say?”
George Adamson
Just to reiterate, no one should ignore what’s happening in the Pacific. You know, there is a phenomenon that takes place in the Pacific which is related to the movement of warm water, and that affects global weather patterns. And this year, it looks like it’s going to be very strong. It will be the strongest we’ve ever recorded. Whether it’s the strongest ever, I don’t know. I mean, when you see people say, “Oh, the tree ring records suggest there’s been nothing that strong” I mean, there’s so much uncertainty in the tree ring record. I would take that with a bit of a pinch of salt. It is significant. People should be taking the forecast of El Niño seriously, particularly if you’re responsible for agriculture or disaster management on either side of the Pacific, or in fact almost anywhere in the tropics. You know, you should really be taking this seriously. However, as a consumer of the media, particularly in the UK, read everything you read about El Niño with a critical lens.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 399ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that carbon capture and storage as a mitigation technology, had been first proposed in the mid 1970s by Italian physicist Cesar Marchetti. There had been a small amount of interest in it. It was looked at in 1989-90 and regarded as impractical, far too expensive, And it would have stayed there, I think, had not the Kyoto Protocol meant that sooner or later industrializations were going to have to talk about or reduce their emissions, and CCS might be a relatively pain-free way of doing that. Okay, so there had been endless sequestration forums and plans for this and that and the other, the European efforts had fallen over because the funding wasn’t there, especially after the global financial crisis.
Thespecificcontext was but eventually, for various reasons, the Boundary Dam project persisted, and it opened, and fairly instantly ran into problems.
What I think we can learn from this is that CCS has had so many false dawns. But it’s the only technology that oil, coal, and gas have in answer to the climate issue (don’t even start me on Direct Air Capture).
What happened next. Well, some of the attention has moved on to Direct Air Capture. Gaia help us (though why would she?).
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fourteen years ago, on this day, September 30th, 2012,
Barry Commoner, a pioneering environmental scientist and activist, died Sunday at age 95.
Described in 1970 by Time magazine as the “Paul Revere of ecology,” Commoner followed Rachel Carson as America’s most prominent modern environmentalist. He viewed the environmental crisis as a symptom of a fundamentally flawed economic and social system. A biologist and research scientist, he argued that corporate greed, misguided government priorities, and the misuse of technology undermined “the finely sculptured fit between life and its surroundings.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was Barry Commoner had been a very important figure in global environmental awareness, especially around Project Sunshine and Fallout, and his book Science and Survival in 1966 really was important for sensitising people to the build up of carbon dioxide. There’s a direct line to the 1967 documentary by Roy Battersby, and Commoner had stood for president in 1980
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Thirty two years ago, on this day, September 29th, 1994,
A BROAD cross-section of Australian business yesterday took a cautious first step towards a Federal Government proposal for voluntary commitments by the corporate sector to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But earlier aspirations by Canberra for a major new greenhouse initiative to be announced in the short term were dampened with the corporate sector signalling it would not be rushed into any new undertakings.
The Industry Greenhouse Network – a coalition of nearly 30 business interests including such corporate giants as BHP and CRA and groups such as the Business Council of Australia – met with senior officials from the departments of Primary Industries, Environment, Industry, and Prime Minister and Cabinet, in Canberra yesterday.
The meeting considered a major new tack in the Federal Government’s response to the greenhouse gas problem built around voluntary undertakings by the corporate sector which would include energy efficiency and energy-saving measures.
Gill, P. 1994. Business edges towards Collins plan to reduce greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 30 September.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that having defeated the relatively vague idea for a domestic carbon tax in ‘91-92 the big end of town, represented by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Mining Industry Council, etc. was presumably quite irritated to see that carbon tax proposal was back on the agenda, thanks to the advocacy of the Australian Conservation Foundation and Senator John Faulkner’s receptivity to it. So the BCA and MCA, or AMIC, as it was then known, had set up a back room operation called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, and here they were doing the standard emollient “let’s have a voluntary scheme” ploy, which works almost every time.
What I think we can learn from this is that voluntary schemes are sort of a second manoeuvre of trade associations and sectors, after trying to keep the issue off the agenda by ignoring it and pushing back at it has failed. See also Nigel Balchin and Darkness Falls.
What happened next They got what they wanted. The proposal for a carbon tax was defeated, and a voluntary scheme known as the Greenhouse Challenge was brought in in its place. The Greenhouse Challenge was basically worthless. It provided consultancy fees for a few people, a bit of a pale green glow for a while, but everyone had to stop pretending.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 28th, 2008,
The 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference, subtitled Implications of a Global Climate Change of 4+ Degrees for People, Ecosystems and the Earth-system, was held 28–30 September 2009 at Oxford, United Kingdom.[1] The three-day conference had about 140 science, government, NGO and private sector delegates, and included 35 oral presentations and 18 poster presentations
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that scientists had been banging on the table with increased noise and frustration, fear, whatever you, desperation, whatever you want to call it, for quite a while now, and had hoped that the March 2005 Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change conference at Exeter University would be a turning point, but it hadn’t been, and so some were beginning to think, well, what do we do? What can we expect? Mitigate for two, adapt for four is the slogan that came out. Well, we haven’t mitigated to two, we can’t adapt for four. No one ever assumed we could. We are heading straight into the Hellmouth.
Thespecificcontext was that the UNFCCC process was on a temporary high, with the “Roadmap to Copenhagen”, but everyone knew that even a ‘successful’ negotiation would be grossly inadequate.
What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists have been frustratingly right, if somewhat naive about political power and unable to connect with the civil society, which is frankly largely incapable of connecting with anyone or anything.
What happened next There was another conference of similar ilk in 2011 in Melbourne, but nothing useful came out of that either, we’re all doomed.
Anyway, what’s interesting from this is that it gave a real fillip to CCS in the UK, it put it on the agenda as a possible solution
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that Australian political elites had been well aware of carbon dioxide build up as a problem stretching back to the early 1970s They had, of course, ignored the problem for as long as possible, because there are no easy solutions, and it would interfere with the power, privilege, and profit of the donor class.
Also it’s just not easy to fix. It’s really not, or not easy to fix within the parameters set.
After successfully tamping down concern by elites in the early 1990s and then again through the 2000s in 2006 the issue had exploded onto the public agenda, Labor had used it as a stick to beat the Liberal National Government. However, Labor in power had then monumentally fucked it up, Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, etc.
Thespecificcontext was Julia Gillard was forced to try to clean up the mess because there was no way of having a government without carbon pricing. Therefore, she set up the multiparty climate change committee, the MPCCC. She extended invites to everyone; the Independents and the Greens took her up, and the Liberals and Nationals, of course, did not.
What I think we can learn from this is that politics is the slow boring of hard boards, as per old Maxie [Weber] and but meanwhile some solutions, some problems rather just keep growing if you ignore them or a half-assed and solution solving them, i.e. wicked problems, and of course super wicked problems.
What happened next The MPC beavered away, produced its reports and recommendations, and this became the legislation for the clean energy package, which passed in September 2011 and the emissions trading portion of that began on first of July 2012 and may have helped reduce emissions for a bit. Then it was of course abolished by Tony Abbott.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
There’ll be “waiting for the other shoe to drop” the phoney war, the Rocky Horror, “antici….pation.”
We’re in this phase at the minute, like the 1939-40 phoney war, where we all know it’s coming but somehow think it won’t be That Bad. People are doing “disaster porn”, circulating stories of deaths foretold etc,
plaintive appeals for governments etc to plan and to minimise the coming damage. These appeals will be, largely, ignored.
Then there’ll be the “whatever happens happens” (sturm and drang, thunder and lightning, very very frightening)
And if it is as bad, then it’ll be “disaster of the week” every week (especially if there are White People in Peril). Hawaii getting bulls-eyed by hurricanes is one early example of this, if/when it happens.
And then we’ll be in it, and there’ll be floods (see what I did there, har har) of videos.
The fake sharks will make an appearance.
Then, if it’s as bad as the boffins say, then there will be
disaster relief appeals
disaster relief appeal scams
Denunciations of coloniality, settler colonialism (which actually have a point, given the history of it all).
If it’s for some reason not that bad, some of the “El Nino minimizers”, climate deniers, lukewarmers will try to tell us “hysterical media”, “hysterical science”.
Then there’ll be the aftermath, the clean-up, the accounting. (“She should have died hereafter. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow blah blah .”)
Lives will be ended, ecosystems will be radically altered (and will not ‘bounce back’). So much will be lost. It will all get pinned on El Nino, in an effort to avoid talking about the sweaty elephant in the room, carbon dioxide build-up
Fwiw, I think one of the things El Nino will destroy is the illusion that some (vaguely defined) previous era of stability/growth is going to return if we just do x, y, and z.
Twelve years ago, on this day, September 26th, 2014 Tony McMichael RIP
In later years, and particularly after returning to Australia in 2001, he worked on the health effects of climate change.[9] He had always been influenced by ideas of anthropogenic crises, first population growth, and latterly of general planetary overload.[10] He argued that a warming world would have significant negative effects on human health. He said “Climate change is not just about disruptions to the local economy or loss of jobs or loss of iconic species. It’s actually about weakening the foundations of the life support systems that we depend on as a human species.”[1] His team showed that tens of thousands of people were dying each year from climate-induced flooding, malnutrition, and infectious diseases.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_McMichael
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 399ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
McMichael grew up in Adelaide, and graduated in medicine from the University of Adelaide (1961–1967). As a student, he spent a summer volunteering at a leprosy colony in New Delhi, India where he saw how patients were treated as social outcasts suffering from the stigma of a disfiguring disease although they were no longer contagious. The following year, whilst on a similar service trip to Papua New Guinea he met social sciences student Judith Healy, whom he married shortly after graduation. They had 2 children. He was elected president of the National Union of Students, based in Melbourne, in 1968.[1]
After 18 months in general practice, he was invited to become the PhD student of Professor Basil Hetzel at the new department of social and preventive medicine, Monash University in Victoria, graduating in 1972. Studying factors that influenced the mental health of undergraduate students, he gained skills in epidemiological research. He also showed early evidence of independent inquiry informed by reading the works of thinkers such as Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich who questioned the capacity of the Earth to support a growing world population with increasing consumption of resources.[2]
He then worked at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, studying the health of workers in the tyre industry. Returning to Australia he worked for CSIRO and then became the Foundation Chair in Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of Adelaide from 1986 until 1994. From 1994 to 2001, he was the Professor of Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, before returning to Australia to follow Prof Bob Douglas as the director of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health[3] at the Australian National University in Canberra. Most recently he held an NHMRC Australia Fellowship at the ANU, where he also ran the Environment, Climate, and Health research program. McMichael was chair of think tank The Australia Institute.[4]
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 26th, 2010,
Climate change activists in Australia associated with Rising Tide attached themselves to equipment inside the world’s largest coal port, in Newcastle, Australia, shutting down its operations, the terminal operator and protesters stated. The protestors stopped operations at all three terminals operated by Port Waratah Coal Services, which typically runs a continuous operation, a company spokesman told the Reuters news agency. “All operations have temporarily stopped,” the spokesman said, after about 50 protesters took action at dawn on Sunday morning. Some attached themselves to loaders and machinery inside the facility, while others demonstrated with banners.[59] News reports stated that two were arrested during the protests.[60]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was there had been efforts to shut down power stations and coal export ports before (and have been since).
Thespecificcontext was this coming just as the Gillard government was taking power, not that that was a factor for the protesters.
What I think we can learn from this is that, as per Mario Savio, people do try to throw their bodies on the gears of the machine, but the machine has sharp teeth and it chews them up and spits them out,
What happened next more valiant protests – and the exports climb, the emissions climb and the concentrations climb.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).